legal firm which does not act for plaintiffs

Carawaystick

In a FOI response the rsa sent when queried why they thought it was legal to drive in a mandatory cycle lane, they stated

rsa wrote:

This legal firm is unique in the jurisdiction as they do not act for plaintiffs. They act for, and are retained under contract, by multinational insurers to defend, among other matters, claims which arise from road traffic accidents

Are these credible claims?
That a firm does not act for any plaintiff, and that it is the only one in Ireland?

Would anyone care to guess what firm it is?

FreudianSlippers

I don't see why it isn't possible in theory. If they had a big enough defendant-only client pool (read: insurance companies), they may wish to avoid any potential or perceived conflicts of interest and refuse any plaintiff work.

There may be something prohibiting it in criminal cases, but probably not in civil proceedings.

Carawaystick

It does seem strange that a legal company would work for company A as lawyers for respondents, but not for the same clients if they were sueing as plaintifs.

I'm unsure how you could state categorically they're the only firm to work like that though.

Grolschevik

Not sure if it's still the case, but for a long time an, I think one-man, solicitor's firm had as its sole client a large national utility.

Had his offices within theirs, and was to all intents and purposes in-house legal.

For reasons I'm unclear on, X & Co remained technically an independent firm, even though the sole client was this utility.

AndonHandon

There is a firm out in Dundrum in the same building as RSA who seem to act within RSA almost but don't. Can't think of the name off the top of my head.

Carawaystick

I don't doubt there are "captured" legal firms, but to only act for insurance companies when they are respondents ( and to give dubious legal advice to the Road Safety Authority)

crosshair12

AndonHandon wrote: »

There is a firm out in Dundrum in the same building as RSA who seem to act within RSA almost but don't. Can't think of the name off the top of my head.

Dawsons?

Little CuChulainn

Does the MIBI have a firm like this?

FreudianSlippers

Grolschevik wrote: »

Not sure if it's still the case, but for a long time an, I think one-man, solicitor's firm had as its sole client a large national utility.

Had his offices within theirs, and was to all intents and purposes in-house legal.

For reasons I'm unclear on, X & Co remained technically an independent firm, even though the sole client was this utility.

I think a large transport company does the same thing - is that technically permissible under the Law Soc rules?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Grolschevik

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think a large transport company does the same thing - is that technically permissible under the Law Soc rules?

I don't know, but I presume it must be.

Victor

Grolschevik wrote: »

For reasons I'm unclear on, X & Co remained technically an independent firm, even though the sole client was this utility.

Aren't there certain things that an external lawyer can do, that an in-house lawyer can't? Having a captured firm takes care of most of that.

Note that Revenue might take a different view depending on the exact arrangements - self-employed people are require to have more than one contract in a given year to retain self-employed status.

CardinalJ

Pretty much all major insurers have their own in house legal. Some loss adjusters have their own. Most large companies have their own in house legal firm that practices under a different name.

Grolschevik

Victor wrote: »

Note that Revenue might take a different view depending on the exact arrangements - self-employed people are require to have more than one contract in a given year to retain self-employed status.

I hadn't heard that this was a specific requirement. I don't remember it being in the revenue information leaflet on "are yiu an employee". You couldn't direct me to the source, could you?

hullaballoo

Grolschevik wrote: »

I hadn't heard that this was a specific requirement. I don't remember it being in the revenue information leaflet on "are yiu an employee". You couldn't direct me to the source, could you?

I can't see how that could be in any way feasible across any number of sectors. I would have thought self-employed people in particular who take on large jobs would only be capable of responsibly taking on one at any given time? I'm not just thinking of lengthy jobs in the legal sector, of which there are plenty, but I've dealt with many self-employed construction workers who would take on one contract at a time, some of which could go on for years!

Victor

Code of Practice for Determining Employment or Self-Employment Status of Individuals (PDF, 229KB)

Grolschevik

Victor wrote: »

Code of Practice for Determining Employment or Self-Employment Status of Individuals (PDF, 229KB)

I don't see anything in that to indicate that "self-employed people are require to have more than one contract in a given year to retain self-employed status."

Victor

If you read the full document, that is perfectly consistent.

It's to stop people evading PRSI.

Grolschevik

Victor wrote: »

If you read the full document, that is perfectly consistent.

It's to stop people evading PRSI.

It may be logically consistent, but it is not stated as such.